The more I read about 'community curators' in these post, I've become more interested in developing a structured program and involvement for our museum. Thus far our experiences and 'use' have been informal, but we certainly have relied on many aspects of what can be considered the use of 'community curators.'

I've seen more positive aspects than negatives ones. We've discussed our concerns here about presenting factual information, but most all of us know how to discern that which is fictional among what is historical/social/cultural/economic facts/constructs. We can use the former to supplement and not supplant the facts.

The question you're asking about the labels...quirky (yes, perhaps), interesting (absolutely) a gimmick (no way!). Think of the 'community curators' labels as adding another dimension for describing a 3-dimensional object.

I find the original work project documents for the Civilian Conservation Corps to be very interesting but they do not stand alone when we're interpreting the CCC program and projects. The social/cultural/economic/political aspects are just as interesting, if not more so, than the information provided in the forestry commission records. We would be doing a disservice to our visitors if we only presented information from these documents. The program was not one-dimensional and it would be inaccurate to depict it as such.

The CCC enrollees very rarely referred to 'gipsy moth crews' as such. CCC administrative records only refer to 'gipsy moth crews' and not the slang. There were many names used by enrollees to describe these crews - the 'Bug O Guys' is among one of many. It may be seemingly quirky to use 'Bug O Guys' on a label...but the use of slang (of which there was for just about everything) provides some insight into the social phenomena occurring in the camps and at a macro level, the youth movement of the 30's.

I need and use information like this all the time. I can't do everything I want to do or that needs to be done as the only staff person in this museum (and part-time, volunteer) either. I serve as a vessel for gathering documentation and info, organizing, interpreting/disseminating it. This is a service to the public, but community curators can do this directly without having to totally rely on me at the other end. I can provide them with the tools to work with. I wouldn't consider the community curators as a gimmick to recruit volunteers to help me though, so that wouldn't be an underlying agenda.

What I'd like to do is come up with an exhibit to involve community curators, as a case study and see how it works out.

I don't want to over think this involvement or create issues that simply don't exist. I don't think there is any mystery here either. We're not supplanting, we're supplementing. Wikipedia, the same.

Pam

In a message dated 3/4/2006 11:46:49 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, [log in to unmask] writes:

Both Dr. Müller-Straten and Jeremy's comparisons of the Wikipedia to
Encyclopaedia Britannica raise what is a parallel question in the
museological discussion, namely, is the point of inclusion simply to
involve 'others' or 'outsiders' in the museum (as Lola Young has
phrased it, 'to be more like us')?

Or should the objective be to redefine the parameters of collecting and
narratives told by the museum? (The parallel being, can a collaborative
encyclopedia like wikipedia only go as far as to recapitulate the
Encyclopedia Britannica, or can it go farther?)

Or are 'community curators' just a gimmick to get some interesting,
sometimes quirky, display labels?

-L.D.